Why do people prefer cars over public transport?
I’m 25 and I don’t have a drivers license. I mean, I’ve never really felt the need to go and get one. Public transport is usually the fastest option where I live, and it takes a lot less responsibility to use it. But most people would still prefer driving, rather than using the public T. Why?
I think this is the main reason people don't use it in America.
Public transportation doesn't exist for most Americans.
If it does exist, it's really bad. Buses are the most prevalent in America and they just suck in most cities.
Bus routes are pretty sparse, so you end up having to walk a pretty decent distance to catch the bus and then again when you get off the bus and go to your destination. It sucks because it adds and extra 30 minutes to the trip, but the exercise is nice so for me the walk is something I can deal with.
What I can deal with is the fact that buses are hardly ever on schedule. A late bus sucks because you're waiting forever for it to get there. An early bus can be even worse; if you get to your stop 2 minutes early but the bus was 4 minutes early you've missed it and now you're waiting another ~20 minutes for the next one. If that bus happened to take you to an infrequent connecting route you're going to miss that connection too. Now instead of being 20 minutes late you're an hour late because you missed your connection.
I'd love to take public transportation instead of my car, but I don't want to waste hours of my life waiting around because the bus is never where it's supposed to be when it's supposed to be there.
Speaking as someone who lives in the US, the reason why people “prefer” it is because it’s embedded into the culture that public transportation is for poor people- temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that. And the reason for that cultural programming is because auto manufacturers and airlines have consistently lobbied against any improvements to public transportation from the very beginning, and even had a hand in specifically designing cities to require cars. China has bullet trains that could get us safely and comfortably from one side of the country to the other in 4 hours. Most EU countries have safe, cheap, accessible public transportation that EVERYONE uses.
At the end of the day, it’s just another capitalist ploy.
Speaking as someone who lives in the US, the reason why people “prefer” it is because it’s embedded into the culture that public transportation is for poor people- temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that
It's really not that different from anywhere else. Almost anywhere in the world, people who can afford cars usually buy cars.
Speaking as someone who lives in the US, the reason why people “prefer” it is because it’s embedded into the culture that public transportation is for poor people
You can see that with all the comments talking about how cars are superior because you don't need to share space with strangers.
China is the number 1 car market on planet earth now. They buy more cars today than nearly anybody else thanks to an exploding middle class.
The fastest train in China does not go anywhere near 700 miles per hour (LA to NYC = 2800miles). The train would have to break the ground speed of sound.
A car is superior in almost every way where I live.
-Cars are faster. They don't have to stop to pick up and drop off other passengers.
-Cars operate on your schedule. They leave when you leave.
-Cars take you directly to your final destination. No transfers.
-Cars can take you anywhere. Want to take a road trip, you can.
-Cars take cargo. On transit, you can only take what you can carry or can fit in a cart (if a cart is accepted and will fit).
-Cars allow you to set up for your comfort. You control climate control, you control the radio. You can even adjust the seat for comfort.
I live out in a (relatively speaking) smaller city in Texas. We don’t have public transportation here.
Also, I like to be able to do things on my own schedule. A long time ago I lived in a city with a bus presence and had to take the bus when my car broke down and it took several hours longer round trip than I would have been able to do what I needed to do in my car.
Public transit is almost never the fastest option. Even when I lived in New York City, it wasn't the fastest option. If you were running late, you'd spend the extra money on a taxi to get to the airport or to get across town and except for the very peak of rush hour, it was faster. That's broadly been true in my travels in Europe, as well: taxis are almost always faster, from London to Rome.
Add to that, in the US, the actual experience of using public transit is often quite bad. Public transit is, well, public. You share a limited space, sometimes a very limited space, with literally anyone. Women are groped. The smell of urine is common. The seats are sticky. It's just gross, even in wealthy areas.
In contrast, with a car, you have a private, controlled environment. The temperature is what you want it to be. There's music. You can have a private conversation with your spouse. The chair is comfortable. Maybe you even have heated seats with a massage function. But whatever car you have, it's probably more luxurious than even a great public transit option.
So:
Public transit is almost never the fastest option. Even when I lived in New York City, it wasn't the fastest option. If you were running late, you'd spend the extra money on a taxi to get to the airport or to get across town and except for the very peak of rush hour, it was faster. That's broadly been true in my travels in Europe, as well: taxis are almost always faster, from London to Rome.
Add to that, in the US, the actual experience of using public transit is often quite bad. Public transit is, well, public. You share a limited space, sometimes a very limited space, with literally anyone. Women are groped. The smell of urine is common. The seats are sticky. It's just gross, even in wealthy areas.
In contrast, with a car, you have a private, controlled environment. The temperature is what you want it to be. There's music. You can have a private conversation with your spouse. The chair is comfortable. Maybe you even have heated seats with a massage function. But whatever car you have, it's probably more luxurious than even a great public transit option.
So:
AvaddonLFC ☄️ 🤘
BigBorner
shit_of_ass
AineLasagna
michikade
marshadow
SpankinCarl
burgersc12Brainwashing
Because i may need to be across town with 5 minutes notice
Because our light rail transit system can't handle snow, or rain, or heat
Because I like freedom
Because it's extremely unreliable. (Bus comes at 2, never shows until 2:20 and it's full so it skips the stop)
Sticky floors and seats, drug addicts, random fights, etc...
Public transport is usually the fastest option where I live, and it takes a lot less responsibility to use it.
This is... not true in a lot of places.
Did you live in one of those cities where they had the flying buses? Because otherwise you're just as much, if not more, at the whim of traffic and construction on a bus. A car will always be faster and more reliable than a bus. subways and local trains usually only beat cars because they're often on a closed loop where they don't have to stop. Plenty of trains have issues though, like the city I used to live in who shut down the trains downtown every single holiday weekend (downtown was the transfer point). A bike might be reliable on short distances where there is heavy traffic if you have dedicated bike lanes where you can avoid that traffic.
The problem comes if your city doesn't have total subway coverage and you have to take a bus to a subway, take a subway, take a bus from the subway, driving will always win.
Biking can quite often take you around traffic; in some cities, there are bus lanes that allow them to go around traffic too. Even just the ability to get off the bike and walk it up a one-way street can sometimes get you around some annoying obstacles.
Though it was hardly scientific, Top Gear once raced a car against three other forms of transit, the key being they had to go through the center of London during rush hour. First place was a bicycle, Second place was a boat, Third place was public transit, Fourth place was the car.
The vast majority of the plane isn't driving through the center of London to get to work. In North America a lot of people are coming from the subburbs to somewhere else. Let's look at the scenarios a lot of people deal with.
1-3 are usually fine for commuting. Assuming you don't need a vehicle to run errands, transport anything big to and from work, etc.
4 is the scenario for most people and why cars are popular. If I can walk out my front door to a bus stop, and get dropped off right beside work, a bus is great. if I walk 15 minutes to a stop, wait for a bus, take an inefficient route in the general direction of my work, get off, wait for a transfer (could be 5-15 minutes depending on the city/route) then take another inefficient route only arrive at my office in 2-3x the amount of time it would have taken to drive there, I'm driving. Most people don't seem to realize that most places don't have the awesome transportation system of a New York City, London, or some places like Seoul or Tokyo.
As the cities get smaller, the transportation gets worse. I grew up in a city that had 1 bus on every route. it would go by every stop once an hour. It was really awful as a system especially if you had to transfer. It wasn't just a matter if living near a stop and having work near a destination stop, you also had to see if the bus time lined up with your work time. Otherwise you'd be there an hour early and maybe have to stay an hour late. If you live in some European or Asian cities that have really good public transit, or one of the very few north american ones that do, and your work and house line up just right, it makes sense for you, but for most it doesn't.
I think a few others have mentioned how about 80% of the population, at least of the USA, lives in urban areas. So yes; generally the vast majority of people ARE traveling through heavily settled areas to get to work.
Everything you're saying about 1-4 is pretty much correct; and that's why in the end, I don't blame most in the US for not waiting an hour for a bus going to a train. But 4 isn't so often because it's "impossible/impractical" to set up public transit for that area; it's just that that area has, perhaps foolishly, invested more into cars, 4-lane roads, and parking lots than good bus/train systems, cycling lanes, and pedestrain areas. In the US cities that get it right (not so many, I'll admit), it's a really good experience, even taking a bike through large areas. Plus, the advent of smartphones helps people get to buses on time with minimal waiting.
Yesterday, I was headed somewhere, saw on my phone that a taxi would take 15 minutes to arrive, said "fk no, that's too long" and biked to a subway stop. Given that it was rush hour, the trip was faster than if I'd taken a taxi.
For north america it's an issue of lower population density, a significant issue in most Canadian cities and mid size and lower American cities. Europe usually has higher density and better investment. Most cities can't justify running frequent bus services in those areas which means people want to drive and thus fewer people use the bus and the buses get scaled back or removed. I've lived at both ends of this. Most cities aren't willing to spend the money in the hopes that ridership catches on. I lived in a city of a million that had only 2 train lines. If you were lucky and lived right on it and worked right on it great. Otherwise every trip became insanely long. Many feeder buses were every 30 minutes, so you ran into a schedule issue there, then you had to get to the train, and possibly wait 15-20 minutes for it. Get to where you were going, get off and wait for the every 30 minute bus going out to where you needed to be and ride that.
Even if you left right when the bus was coming, you'd be looking at 15 minutes to the station, waiting up to 20 minutes depending on how the wind blew, riding say 25 minutes to your destination (already at 1 hour) then getting off waiting for possibly up to 20 minutes for the other bus, and then another 20 minutes out to where you were going. Possibly 90 minutes, vs 30 minutes in a car, and you could leave when you wanted to.
If the train time didn't exactly line up, you might end up leaving 2+ hours before work started, vs leaving 45 minutes before while driving.
That’s all a valid critique, but…I struggle to see how your explanation is that it relates to “population density”. We are talking about the cities, not trying to put trains in Montana farmlands.
In fact, within urban/suburban areas, the point of population density mostly relates to…investments. Because each home and commercial strip is separated by two miles of four-lane roads, parking lots, and clover highway on-ramps, everything is more spread out; hence, less density. So I feel like a lot of people disagree on which end of the chicken-and-egg explanation. America is big, and has areas that will never be covered by transit, but that’s not an explanation for why out-of-car transit is terrible in its urban centers. It’s generally caused by poor decisions in infrastructure investment.
Bus rapid transit and bus lanes are not universal and even if a city has them it doesn't mean they have them on every single street. There have been times where public transportation has made sense for me. I lived in a city where I was on the same block as the train station and my place of work was a 5 minute walk from the destination station. Great, I took the train everyday.
The next job was a 25km drive, which took around 20-25 minutes in a car, and if I'd taken public transportation it would have been 1.5 hours each way. Most people fall into the latter type of situation which is why cars are so popular. Public transportation tends to fall apart as soon as you start adding in transfers. Buses/trains usually don't perfectly line up so every time you have to transfer, you add in a significant amount of time, and neither of them are direct so when you combine inefficient routes with things like waiting time cars almost always make more sense.
because public transportation sucks in most of the US. I just did a very typical commute for my area in Detroit region. The commute from Grosse Pointe Woods to Warren, takes an hour and 35 minutes by public transport. In that time I would have to walk a mile and a half total. or, I can get a car and get there in 22 minutes.
and now, because there is basically an expectation that everyone has a car, our communities are sprawled out over a very large distance. I could totally see how if you live in a city, you might need to ask this question, but if you lived in a suburb, it would be very obvious why public transportation isn’t popular everywhere.
I always feel like these posts come from people who've only ever lived in a city. I'd love to catch a bus sometimes but I'd have to bike an hour to the nearest stop and even then it likely won't stop where I need to go. In some parts of the US at least, it's literally impossible to only use public transportation. So you buy a car and if you move somewhere with good public transportation...you've already got a car and are used to the freedom anyway
Also the US is very large geographically so if you have to travel often it makes far more financial sense (not to mention saves a lot of time) to get a car
I've long been calling cars the Swiss army knifes of transportation. Those knives objectively suck for most usecases. Sure, there is a little saw on there, but you're not going to cut a tree with it. Similarly most dedicated tools will be better than their eqivalent on the multitool. But that's not the point of a Swiss army knife. The little red tool is everything at once, removing the need to decide what to bring.
Cars work in similar ways. They are inefficient, loud and bad for everybody's health, including the planets. But they are also your all in one. Want to haul stuff? Cars. It's raining and you don't want to get wet? Cars. And so on and so forth. Each of this usecases has better alternatives (public transport, cargo bike etc) but none of these serve all usecases at once.
The car therefore promotes intellectual laziness. Driving a car means not having to think about the best way, because the car always provides a way. And city design often helps with that. The extreme is North America, but other places are not free from this.
Public transport rarely being door to door adds to this. You have to actually think about where the stations are in relation to your destination. Searching for parking is similar but people frequently don't think of it as being part of the driving experience.
And then there are additional reasons, that are less stupid. I've been told, that some people for example that some people don't feel save taking transit, especially those of minorities. The car provides a level of isolation.
Also social stigma (I would classify that reason as stupid though)
I remember having a bus come every hour. If you miss that bus, then oops you're an hour late for work.
If you run 5 minutes late in your car, then you are 5 minutes late for work.
Also if you have to take 3 or so busses to connect somewhere, depending on how the scheduling worked out, you could get unlucky and have an hour wait between bus 1 & 2 and an hour wait between bus 2 & 3.
Taxis cost a decent amount of money here.
Uber/Lyft/etc are hit and miss. App says if you need to be somewhere at 9am, to request the ride at like 8:30 or whatever. And when you do, you don't get anyone showing up or someone will grab your ride, not come to you for 10 minutes, and then put your request for a ride back out there for someone else to grab.
Or forced to be inadequate, in the case of Baltimore.
We were supposed to get a new east-west light rail line. It was shovel-ready and federally funded. However, our wonderful governor Larry Hogan, in his push to punish those Baltimore ni- I mean, apply his fiscal conservative bona fides, canceled it, calling it a "boondoggle". Instead of this "boondoggle", Hogan threw his support behind the Purple Line, a similar light rail proposal funded by public-private partnerships that was the subject of land disputes, went billions over budget, and is only just finally getting off the ground.
He also pushed for highway expansion projects that just so happened to benefit his real estate investments, but we don't begrudge him for that for reasons of...
I've heard public transit is pretty good in DC, too. My fiancée and I are planning a trip to DC at the end of August. I plan on parking my car at the hotel and just use public transit, so we'll test that theory.
EDIT: Also, I've never been to Salt Lake City. Seems like a really cool place though!
SuiXi3D
tst123
genoxidedev1
Pseu
iNeedScissors67
gus
Anthony Tang
minorsecond
emptyother
Kalkaline 
dominoko
tboyer96
Fatalchemist
Lilkev
parrot-party